berni_mccoy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:03 PM
Original message |
It's Officially Political War: Reid Informs McConnel Reconciliation is Imminent |
|
Just announced on Hardball, Reid has given formal notice to McConnel that due to Republican's abuse of filibuster, the Democrats are going to pass HCR using Reconciliation. Chuck Todd declared that this is equivalent to declaring political war. To that I say, it's about damn time. So be it. To hell with bipartisanship. We tried. The GOP turned their noses up at it. They deserve to be left out of everything moving forward.
|
harun
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:09 PM
Response to Original message |
1. About damn time, no one is asking them to be bi-partisan. They are |
|
asking them to get something done.
|
MindandSoul
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
12. Bi-partisanship was a nice dream. . .but never existed! And we lost a lot of time pursuing a dream! |
jody
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:12 PM
Response to Original message |
2. How can someone abuse filibuster when the intent is for one person representing a minority to stand |
|
in opposition to the tyranny of a majority?
The Senate was defined in our Constitution to protect a state's rights against an all-powerful federal government. A threat recognized by Jefferson and Madison the founders of our Democratic Party.
Jefferson and Madison drafted bills for Kentucky and Virginia respectively asserting Tenth Amendment rights against the federal government.
|
laughingliberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
6. The filibuster is not part of the Constitution |
|
It is part of the Senate rules which they make for themselves. I think we went over 100 years without it.
|
jody
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
9. I've read our Constitution perhaps as many times as have you and debated its intent. If you read my |
|
post with understanding you will discover I never said filibuster was part of the Constitution.
My other statements about state's rights, Jefferson, and Madison are correct.
|
laughingliberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
41. Sorry. Thought you were objecting to the use of reconciliation to pass the |
|
amendment to the health care bills.
|
jody
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #41 |
45. My intent was to focus on how a simple majority could impose its opinion on the "natural, inherent, |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-11-10 06:15 PM by jody
unalienable Rights" of a minority. SCOTUS on one of those rights, “{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
A filibuster is part of the process that along with SCOTUS protects every minority.
|
laughingliberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #45 |
47. It would seem the Senate, itself, exists for the purpose of protecting minorities from the |
|
tyranny of the majority. These days I think it's the tyranny of the minority from which we may need protection.
|
jody
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #47 |
51. Sounds logical "tyranny of the minority" but wouldn't that be the majorities view of any divisive, |
|
polarizing right that prevails?
If a minority right prevails in the courts, then the majority claims "tyranny of the minority".
If a minority right loses in the courts, then the minority claims "tyranny of the majority".
How can Congress find bi-partisan solutions under such conditions?
|
laughingliberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #51 |
55. "How can Congress find bi-partisan solutions under such conditions?" |
|
I have no idea. AFAICS they can't find any solutions, bipartisan or otherwise, under any circumstances. Certainly, the majority has been wrong, at times. Certainly the minority is. But there must be some mechanism by which legislation can be passed unless we feel we've got all the laws we need and can stop now. It is possible the filibuster serves a purpose but I still believe the Senate, itself, served that purpose in that the tiniest states have the same representation as the largest in that body. The debate we saw in the Senate came down to Senators representing around 3% of the population derailing one provision after another. That's a little bit of an overreach, I would think.
I fear we are approaching, if not already there, the state of being an ungovernable nation.
I don't know what the answer is but what we're doing does not seem to be benefiting anyone except those who are doing just fine with things just as they are. And that is a really, really tiny minority.
Any ideas?
|
jody
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #55 |
58. No ideas and at my advanced age I don't expect an answer in this life. |
|
Have a great evening and may good fortune be yours in all that you do, :hi:
|
laughingliberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #58 |
|
and the very best to you, also. :-)
|
laughingliberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
23. delete, posted wrong level |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-11-10 06:05 PM by laughingliberal
|
ljm2002
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
62. I think you can tell when it's being abused pretty easily... |
|
...basically the question is this: is it used for every damned bill or appointment that the majority wants? or is it used here and there for cases where the minority opposition party and/or their constituents feel very strongly about an issue?
Based on that criterion, I think we can fairly say that the filibuster rule is being abused.
|
sharesunited
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:13 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Please don't cry foul when the nuclear option is used against us in the future. |
Beetwasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
7. WTF Are You Talking About???? This Is Not The "Nuclear Option" |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-11-10 05:19 PM by Beetwasher
But thanks for pushing Repub talking points. And Repubs have used reconciliation WAAAAAY more than Dems already. You know that, right?
|
sharesunited
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
11. Do you have corrections to make to this Wikipedia article, then? |
|
By all means, make them. As a service to me and the reading public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
|
Beetwasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
13. LOL! Wikipedia Is Your Source???? |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-11-10 05:31 PM by Beetwasher
:rofl: Umm, jeenyus, the "Nuclear Option" was coined for nuking the fillibuster. I could give a shit what some dipshit Republican put on Wikipedia. But you? You're free to lap it up.
Reconociliation has been used, over and over and over again by the Republicans. Maybe you were sleeping for the past 10 years? Did you have a problem with it when it was used to pass Chimpy's disgusting tax cuts TWICE?
|
sharesunited
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
17. Was it used in violation of the Byrd Rule? |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-11-10 05:35 PM by sharesunited
And what problem do you have with Wikipedia? Can you refer me to a better encyclopedic resource of general knowledge online? Wikipedia is not Conservapedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)
|
Beetwasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
19. Ask Senator Byrd, Who Supports It's Use In This Instance |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-11-10 05:42 PM by Beetwasher
You know, the guy who wrote the rule. :rofl:
Oh, and ONLY Repubs are claiming it's in violation of the Byrd rule. You're in "good" company!
|
sharesunited
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #19 |
22. To sum up then, the approach being used now is ok with you in the future if you are in the minority? |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-11-10 05:43 PM by sharesunited
Great! You will have nothing to regret.
|
Beetwasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-11-10 05:45 PM by Beetwasher
:shrug:
To sum up, you're a hypocrite who had no problems when Repubs rammed through Bush's tax cuts in this manner, but now that Dems are using it, it's a problem for you. Even though HCR was passed with a supermajority and these are relatively minor fixes that are totally budgetary in nature and not in violation of the Byrd rule according to the guy who wrote the Byrd rule. Got it.
|
sharesunited
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
27. If this was tax legislation, no I wouldn't. |
|
I want to try to be consistent. It's important as a matter of integrity.
|
Beetwasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
30. Yeah, yeah, sure. Integrity? ROFL! |
|
Yeah, I'm sure "you" have so much integrity.
|
sharesunited
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #30 |
35. Stop laughing and start making sense. |
|
So far, you're not getting any point across other than you want something done on health care finance reform no matter what and no matter how.
Yes it is frustrating to get blocked. But you want to preserve the tools to do the blocking when the day comes.
And if we are prepared to destroy the process, then why aren't we blowing it up for something better?
|
Beetwasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #35 |
38. Your "Concern" Is Noted, And Transparent |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-11-10 06:03 PM by Beetwasher
Umm, this is not a fillibuster, jeenyus. It has nothing to do with the fillibuster. Reconciliation is not a "tool" for blocking anything.
Who's destroying any process??? How can anyone take the idiotic things you're posting seriously?
You deserve only mocking.
|
sharesunited
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #38 |
42. A distinction without a difference. Two routes around the same blockage. |
|
Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster.
The nuclear option allows a simple majority to override precedent and end a filibuster or other delaying tactic.
The only thing which makes them different is the Byrd Rule, which delimits use of reconciliation.
|
Beetwasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #42 |
44. Only In The Fevered Imaginations Of Concern Trolls Is There No Difference |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-11-10 06:16 PM by Beetwasher
HCR passed both houses with supermajorities. Deal with it. Reconciliation is being used, legitimately and properly according to everyone except Repubs, to make some relatively minor fixes that are all budget related.
You are in some fine company there in your oppositon to it's use.
|
sharesunited
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #44 |
52. Those are the choices? Concerned troll or unscrupulous partisan? |
|
What happened to statesman? I'm not so cynical as to have abandoned that as a value.
|
Beetwasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #52 |
54. Those Are Yr False Choices |
|
With exception of Repubs, every expert on the subject agrees that this use of recon is perfectly legit.
|
sharesunited
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #54 |
57. With a conference report to be submitted for a cloture vote? Legit is as legit does. |
Beetwasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #57 |
59. Now yr just talking out of yr ass |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-11-10 07:01 PM by Beetwasher
HCR already passed the senate with a supermajority.
|
sharesunited
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #59 |
63. Sure, a version passed. One that can't pass the House without changes. |
|
So the House passes its version and Reid attempts to skip a cloture vote on the conference report.
Legit? Byrd Rule compliant? Good enough finished product to not care? Worth forfeiting any valid complaint in the future when the other side wants to skip you?
Doubtful. To put it generously.
|
Beetwasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #63 |
64. Byrd Seems to think its Byrd rule compliant |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-11-10 07:32 PM by Beetwasher
Only u and repub bitching and whining about it, so who really cares. As if we don't use it the Repubs will refrain in the future?
Hell chimpy passed his tax cuts without even trying for cloture first.
|
sharesunited
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #64 |
65. What changed with Senator Byrd? |
|
Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets.
Nobody cares but me and Republicans.
|
Beetwasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #65 |
66. HCR already passed with a supermajority |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-11-10 07:53 PM by Beetwasher
Get over it. Recon is for the minor bedgetary tweaks. Only repub bitch and whine about it. That's yr problem.
|
laughingliberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
48. I do think Medicare part D was passed under reconciliation |
|
I believe it was more than tax legislation.
|
sharesunited
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #48 |
56. The Senate voted for cloture on the conference report in the case of Medicare Part D. |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-11-10 06:49 PM by sharesunited
Think they are going to do that here? Probably not. They don't have the votes.
This is one big exercise in circumvention.
Principle is being sold out much too cheaply. What's on the table just isn't good enough to cut those corners.
|
laughingliberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #56 |
60. I stand corrected. Nevertheless, I don't see there is anything they are proposing to |
|
change under reconciliation that does not meet the test of the Byrd rule. What's on the table isn't good enough, period. But I do not think the rules are being circumvented. COBRA and CHIP passed under reconciliation.
And I sure as hell don't support the House passing that Senate bill without making some changes to it.
I'm sick of the filibuster, anyway. As I discussed with another poster the reason for it is to give the minority a voice against the tyranny of the majority. The Senate, itself, was meant to do that. Every state, no matter its size, has the same representation in the Senate. I think that's sufficient.
|
dionysus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #27 |
blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #27 |
71. No, it's really kind of stupid when it comes to making public polic nty. |
laughingliberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
25. The approach now being used has been used against us repeatedly in the Bush years |
|
and I assume it will be again if we are in the minority. Not using it to pass our legislation isn't going to change that
|
blogslut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-11-10 05:59 PM by blogslut
I'm not part of this argument
|
Beetwasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
|
I'm not making an idiotic claim that the nuclear option applies to reconciliation.
|
blogslut
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #28 |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-11-10 06:01 PM by blogslut
not the right time for defending Wikipedia
|
Beetwasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #33 |
karynnj
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
14. From your own link - the Republicans for several weeks have tried to redefine it. |
|
"During the 111th Congress, opponents of Democratic legislative initiatives began referring to the budget reconciliation process as the nuclear option.<7> Reconciliation allows issues relating to the annual budget to be decided by a majority vote without the possibility of filibuster. Before late 2009, the term nuclear option had been used only to refer to the procedure outlined below."
Where they are completely dishonest is that they are then playing denunciations of the nuclear option by Obama and others - as if it meant the same think.
|
thereismore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
8. Your position is very marginal on this board, you know that, right? nt |
Dappleganger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
16. For some reason, I have put that user on iggy... |
|
no doubt because of other remarks which don't belong on DU as well.
|
sharesunited
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
37. More marginal than Stupak? Lieberman? |
thereismore
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #37 |
53. they are not on this board. nt |
jody
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
10. Excellent observation. What goes around, comes around. n/t |
Greyhound
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
46. Where have you been for the last decade? The "nuclear option" refers to eliminating the filibuster |
|
in the Senate rules.
Faux News are the only morans trying to re-brand reconciliation as "teh nukuler opshin", and you are following their lead?
The republikants used reconciliation to get everything the Idiot Frat Boy used to destroy our nation, the $1.7T millionaire tax cuts were ll passed through reconciliation, for example.
|
leeroysphitz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:15 PM
Response to Original message |
Beetwasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:16 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Gah! They Are NOT Passing HCR W/ Reconciliation, It ALREADY PASSED W/ A SUPERMAJORITY!!! |
|
Not yelling at you Berni, I just hate how this is being framed. Gah!
|
berni_mccoy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
18. This is a good point. But to merge the two bills, they need to pass an amendment |
|
which would normally be subject to the filibuster. It's easier for the Media to frame it this way (I'm no way endorsing it as correct though). You are correct.
|
upi402
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:32 PM
Response to Original message |
15. Good. elbows out time |
|
make the Retuhgs spit Chikletts.
|
kctim
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:39 PM
Response to Original message |
20. What prevents the GOP |
|
from doing the same thing to get rid of this HCR if they take control of everything in 2012?
|
Greyhound
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
21. Are you kidding? Their masters will never allow them to get rid of this, |
|
This is the biggest payday anybody has ever seen before. Wall Street's gonna have to get all creative again to top this rip-off.
|
kctim
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
|
I know the Republicans are going to use this in the coming elections. Saying how wrong it was to 'force it down our throats' and all. So, is there some law or something that would prevent them from using recon to get rid of it?
I don't subscribe to all the 'corporate masters' nonsense.
|
Greyhound
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
50. 'Get rid of', as in repeal, they can't without a 2/3 majority even if they wanted to. But they can |
|
make it even worse for it's victims, this is a squeeze equivalent to the income tax that goes straight to private corporations.
One things for sure, we're all going to see.
|
laughingliberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
32. Nothing prevents them from doing that, anyway |
|
However, I would assume they would only be able to get rid of the same parts we are able to pass under reconciliation.
|
kctim
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #32 |
berni_mccoy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
36. You do realize they did this many times during the Bush Administration? |
|
They abused reconciliation whenever they could. That will not change in the future regardless if the Dems use it or not.
|
kctim
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-12-10 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #36 |
69. I couldn't find anything similiar to this one |
|
where one party would be using reconciliation to eliminate such a huge program that was not in full effect yet, so I was curious if there were procedures or something that prevented such a thing.
And yes, I do realize that the Republicans would still use this tactic regardless of what the Dems did.
|
Arkana
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 05:47 PM
Response to Original message |
29. The gauntlet is thrown. |
yodoobo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:02 PM
Response to Original message |
40. We should just remove the filibuster provision |
|
and be done with it.
I'm tired of being abused by it.
|
sabrina 1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:11 PM
Response to Original message |
43. It better have a PO or they will have a lot explaining to do. |
|
All of a sudden, reconciliation is possible. It was supposedly NOT possible just weeks ago when we suggested it. Now that it is, I expect they will just it right and include a strong PO or they will be held accountable by those who elected them.
|
Mike 03
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 06:25 PM
Response to Original message |
49. As I have said consistently, GO FOR IT. Cram it down their damned throats. |
|
We have nothing to lose, and our integrity will be etched in history books.
This is the right thing to do, and if we lose on this, we know that it is time to give up on politics.
|
grahamhgreen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 08:07 PM
Response to Original message |
67. We better get a public option or Medicare expansion, then. nt |
Festivito
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-11-10 10:39 PM
Response to Original message |
68. We're used to being at war. Why be scared now? |
|
We have a war with something good on the horizon for once. Not just some weird phrase like: "They hate us for our freedoms" or "We're protecting our way of life" meaning our toys.
This one is so we can say that we no longer have to go to fund raisers for kids who found their cancer a little too late.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:26 PM
Response to Original message |